1995 Amendments to the ''Criminal Code''
In 1995, the federal government introduced major changes to the sentencing provisions of the ''Criminal Code''. As part of that review, the package included amendments that responded to the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the correctional systems of Canada. At that time, Indigenous peoples amounted to approximately 18% of the total of incarcerated individuals, but were only 3% of the total population of Canada, an over-representation of more than 5 times their total population. The amendments included a new provision setting out general sentencing principles. The relevant provision was the new s. 718.2(1)(e):Facts of the case
On September 16, 1995, Jamie Tanis Gladue, a young Indigenous woman, was celebrating her birthday with some friends in Nanaimo,__Lower_court_decisions_
Gladue_was_originally_charged_with_second_degree_murder,_but_pled_guilty_to__manslaughter,_with_the_consent_of_the_Crown_prosecutor,_on_the_basis_that_there_was_evidence_of_provocation.__The_main_issue_was_the_appropriate_sentence_to_be_imposed._She_was_sentenced_to_three_years_imprisonment.__Lower_court_decisions_
Gladue_was_originally_charged_with_second_degree_murder,_but_pled_guilty_to__manslaughter,_with_the_consent_of_the_Crown_prosecutor,_on_the_basis_that_there_was_evidence_of_provocation.__The_main_issue_was_the_appropriate_sentence_to_be_imposed._She_was_sentenced_to_three_years_imprisonment._Reasons_of_the_Supreme_Court
The_Supreme_Court_upheld_the_sentence_of_three_years,_but_reviewed_the_factors_which_should_be_considered_in_the_new_sentencing_provision,_s._718.2(e)._Justices_ 999">''R_v_Gladue''__Lower_court_decisions_
Gladue_was_originally_charged_with_second_degree_murder,_but_pled_guilty_to__manslaughter,_with_the_consent_of_the_Crown_prosecutor,_on_the_basis_that_there_was_evidence_of_provocation.__The_main_issue_was_the_appropriate_sentence_to_be_imposed._She_was_sentenced_to_three_years_imprisonment._Reasons_of_the_Supreme_Court
The_Supreme_Court_upheld_the_sentence_of_three_years,_but_reviewed_the_factors_which_should_be_considered_in_the_new_sentencing_provision,_s._718.2(e)._Justices_Peter_Cory">Cory_and_ 999">''R_v_Gladue''__Lower_court_decisions_
Gladue_was_originally_charged_with_second_degree_murder,_but_pled_guilty_to__manslaughter,_with_the_consent_of_the_Crown_prosecutor,_on_the_basis_that_there_was_evidence_of_provocation.__The_main_issue_was_the_appropriate_sentence_to_be_imposed._She_was_sentenced_to_three_years_imprisonment._Reasons_of_the_Supreme_Court
The_Supreme_Court_upheld_the_sentence_of_three_years,_but_reviewed_the_factors_which_should_be_considered_in_the_new_sentencing_provision,_s._718.2(e)._Justices_Peter_Cory">Cory_and_Frank_Iacobucci">Iacobucci_held_that_the_courts_below_erred_in_taking_an_overly_narrow_approach_of_s._718.2(e)._The_purpose_of_this_provision_is_to_address_the_historical_and_current_problem_with_the_severe_over-representation_of_Indigenous_people_within_the_criminal_justice_system. Gladue_was_not_on_reserve_land_at_the_time_of_the_offence_and_therefore_the_sentencing_judge_held_that_s._718.2(e)_did_not_apply._The_Supreme_Court_held_that_was_a_mistake_by_the_sentencing_court._The_Court_held_that_s._718.2(e)_applies_to_"all_aboriginal_persons_wherever_they_reside,_whether_on-_or_off-reserve,_in_a_large_city_or_a_rural_area".__Gladue_reports_
Following_the_Supreme_Court_decision,_sentencing_courts_began_requiring_pre-sentencing_reports_for_aboriginal_offenders,_to_specifically_report_on_the_factors_which_the_Supreme_Court_held_were_required_by_s._718.2(e),_which_Parliament_had_enacted_in_an_attempt_to_lower_the_severe_over-representation_of_Indigenous_people_within_the_Canadian_criminal_justice_system.__These_reports_became_known_as_Lower court decisions
Gladue was originally charged with second degree murder, but pled guilty to manslaughter, with the consent of the Crown prosecutor, on the basis that there was evidence of provocation. The main issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed. She was sentenced to three years imprisonment.''R v Gladue'', 1997 CanLII 3015 (BC CA).Reasons of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld the sentence of three years, but reviewed the factors which should be considered in the new sentencing provision, s. 718.2(e). Justices Peter Cory">Cory and Frank Iacobucci">Iacobucci held that the courts below erred in taking an overly narrow approach of s. 718.2(e). The purpose of this provision is to address the historical and current problem with the severe over-representation of Indigenous people within the criminal justice system. Gladue was not on reserve land at the time of the offence and therefore the sentencing judge held that s. 718.2(e) did not apply. The Supreme Court held that was a mistake by the sentencing court. The Court held that s. 718.2(e) applies to "all aboriginal persons wherever they reside, whether on- or off-reserve, in a large city or a rural area".Gladue reports
Following the Supreme Court decision, sentencing courts began requiring pre-sentencing reports for aboriginal offenders, to specifically report on the factors which the Supreme Court held were required by s. 718.2(e), which Parliament had enacted in an attempt to lower the severe over-representation of Indigenous people within the Canadian criminal justice system. These reports became known asSee also
* Gladue court *References
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gladue Supreme Court of Canada cases 1999 in Canadian case law Canadian criminal case law Canadian Aboriginal case law